On 15/05/2013 17:15, André Warnier wrote: > Ognjen Blagojevic wrote: >> André, >> >> On 15.5.2013 15:38, André Warnier wrote: >>> As far as I understand here, we are not talking about a proxy situation, >>> we are talking about Iptables, which does not proxy, it just modifies >>> packets. >>> So the URL that Tomcat gets from the 1st request line does not contain a >>> hostname[:port}. >> >> According to RFC2616 (Section 5.1.2), client may send absolute URI or >> absolute path. Majority of clients will send absolute path when >> talking to the server. > > Absolute *path*, yes. They MUST do that if they are talking to "this" > server. > > But HTTP 1.1 clients will only send an absolute URI (including > hotsname[:port] when talking to a proxy. > > In this case we are not in a proxy situation, so the request line will > not contain http://hotsname[:port].
While RFC2616 requires that a proxy uses an absolute URL nothing prevents a standard client from using them if it wishes. Which is why I stated in my reply "Depending on the client behaviour..." > Yes, that it will be read seems normal. > But that it would be logged as the port on which the request was > received, seems a bit less intuitive. > But if that is what happens.. Repeating myself again, what is logged in the access logs depends on the pattern the access log is configured with. > I find it less intuitive because of the Javadoc of > HttpServletRequest.getLocalPort : > getLocalPort > > int getLocalPort() > > Returns the Internet Protocol (IP) port number of the interface on > which the request was received. > > Returns: > an integer specifying the port number > Since: > Servlet 2.4 > > So that is the interface (the Connector), not the port number mentioned > in the Host header. Yes, but with the caveat that proxyPort will change the result of that call. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
